SURESH VERMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition against the State Government asking for the quashing of the notifications whereby land of the petitioner measuring about 2352 square yards situate in the estate of village Saleem Tabri, Tahsil and District Ludhiana, was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (hereinafter called the Act ).

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he purchased this piece of land and leased out the same to Burmah Shell Company for a term of 20 years with effect from 1st February, 1968, on a monthly rent of Rs. 220/- to enable them to install petrol and diesel pumps. He has placed on the record a letter. Annexure 'a' from the Burmah Shell Company to show that the averment that he had rented out the land to the said Company is correct. There is no dispute with regard to this averment but what we find is that the State Government issued two notifications on 10th June, 1968, one purporting to be under Section 4 of the Act and the other under Section 17 dispensing with the necessity of following the procedure in the matter of hearing objections as envisaged in Section 5-A of the Act. Section 17 gives special powers in cases of urgency and at the time of issue of these notifications the Government declared that the land was required at public expenses for the construction of a bus stand in Ludhiana City. A notification under Section 6 was also subsequently issued. Possession of the land was taken by a Government on 5th July, 1968 and the Government actually started construction of the bus stand and the executive file which has been produced before me by Mr. Harphool Singh goes to show that the Government had invested about Rs. 66,000/- towards the said construction. The award in regard to compensation had not yet been made by the Collector when with the change of Ministry in the State, it was decided by the Chief Minister on 21st August, 1969, that instead of having a bus stand at the acquired site the same be utilised for other purposes. About half the land measuring nearly 6 acres was decided to be handed over immediately to the Punjab Agro-Industries Corporation, respondent, a State-owned undertaking, to enable it to build up a workshop. This Corporation is registered under the Indian Companies Act with its head office at Chandigarh. Amongst the several objects of the Corporation, some relate to the manufacture of agricultural implements and other equipments needed for the promotion or conduct of commercial or industrial enterprises which the Government wants to encourage. The Chief Minister also took the decision that the compensation for the area passed on to the Corporation would have to be paid by the latter. The petitioner made representations to the Chief Minister pointing out the losses suffered by him as a result of not having been able to avail of the lease which he had entered into with the Burmah Shell Company but the land was never released. He then came up to this Court with a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to have the notifications issued under Section 4, 6 and 17 of the Act quashed and get the land released for his use. A return has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 and the State, in a brief affidavit sworn by Shri Ujagar Singh, Joint Director, State Transport, adopted the same written statement.

(3.) MR. Ranbir Partap Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before me: 1. That the State Government acquired the site belonging to the petitioner by a colourable exercise of its authority inasmuch as the same was intended to be used for purposes other than the construction of a bus stand: 2. That the acquisition being really for the Corporation, it was incumbent on the State Government to have followed the procedure as contained in Part VII of the Act. The argument is that on the Government's own showing the entire compensation for the land given to the Corporation was to be paid by the Corporation and when no money was to be paid towards compensation out of public funds, the acquisition must be deemed in law for the Corporation only; 3. That it was not open to the Government to change the purpose and the acquired land could be used only for the one for which it had been acquired, otherwise the same should have been released.